(April 30, 2009 at 7:53 am)Giff Wrote: This is not as simple as it might be. We all have a perception or misspercetion of what terrorism is.
Most people have, not nesseraily here, have the perception of that terrorist is a muslim guy killing people for no apperent reason and just plain evil.
However no one have relly tried, there some acctually, that have tried to understand why they do it.
But I will wnat to know first of all, is tehre any clear definition of terrorism? Because in some cases can that be relative. During the WWII was the Danish or Frensh rebells freedom fighters for there country and that's what most would see them. Which I also saw them like. But those or who sympathise for the Nazis and in particuallry the nazis themselves, the germans, saw them as terrorists.
The same thing can be said about in the Veitnam war about Viet Cong. Fro some where they freedom fighters for some simple rebells, which we today would see as terrorists.
In Iraq today those who fight the troops over there is concidered terrorists, however they don't nessesaraily have to do with the killings of cilivians which some rebell groups do over there. Which of course don't get much support from the public. So is those who fight the troops terrorists or just rebells? It ofte depend which side your ask and who yo ask.
The 9/11 was a terrible act. Very terrible. That is classified as a terrorist act. Maybe that's is one of the real event that you can clearly say is a terrorism. They killed civlians wanted to create fear, which they casued, and perhaps that's is terrorism. Killing for no real reason or for very strange and far fetched reasons? To kill people for religious reasons is perhaps the only correct defintion of terrprism. Like the subway killings in japans so on.
Some tried to understand why this group did what they did during the 9/11. They appereantly didn't like america, maybe hate is a better word, but why did they do it. What was the motive? It was offically about religion and they wanted to punish america and the western world for som reason. However since Osama who from the beginning was a very intellegent man maybe had some kind of plan more then fear? I have hard to belive that he only intended to kill people and create fear. However his mind might have been deluded by religi8ous bullshit and perhaps thought it was rational to do. It's hard to know. Maybe he thought attacking an ecnomic target would make the economy unstable? Who knows?
Anyhow the act that american and many other western countries did after that was engaging Afghanistand and Iraq. As a war against terrorism, but also liberating the people. However the number of civilian causualties have never been so high as this war. We are talking % where most of those who have gotten killed (so far) is mostly civlians. Think the munber is like 80%. Is a milityary bombing of a city not as much terrorism as the 9/11 bombing. Or is the definition of terrorism also have to do with the motive or just killing civilians? Since the american troops has as ans objective to create fear in the cities by bombing them, isn't that the same thing as during 9/11?
What do you guys think?
Big subject Giff!
Don't think you can be clearly define terrorism. Sure you can quote what the dictionary says, but then you come up against interpretation. In a country the ruling power will classify any faction that engages in armed insurrection as " terrorists ", particularly so when the ruling power is an invading power. However, the insurrectionists do not see it that way, they see themselves as " freedom fighters ", " patriots " or some other label. I think you can apply this logic easily to some of the conflicts you highlight.
9/11 was probably a bit different in that ( assuming the conspiracy theory about America being responsible is untrue ) I would say it was an act of revenge, which in turn prompted America and her allies into another act of revenge i.e. the illegal invasion of Iraq, which produced the usual response by the " terrorists " of that country against the occupying forces.
Another aspect to consider is that the " terrorists " are usually the little guy fighting the big guy. So, the litle guy can't engage in an all-out war and expect to win, but he can hope to triumph by demoralising the big guy and undermining support for the big guy'#s actions...Vietnam is a good example).
The big guy too can't escape, he too can be acused of the use of terror n the way that innocent civilians from the second world war onwards have been massacred in the various conflicts that have taken place.
In conclusion I think that it depends what side you're on as to who is the terorist.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
